HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Rilgin » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

Rilgin

Profile Information

Member since: Thu May 8, 2008, 02:38 PM
Number of posts: 784

Journal Archives

Republicans. Two Options: Do your duty or resign.

In the news and discussion is republicans excusing their members who did not act to quell the lies about the election or Trump generally as a fear of retribution including physical harm to their families.

We can all understand the pressure on such republicans since it was coming from their own party. However, in response to the perceived threats, there are only 2 choices, not 3 choices. If they were too scared to do their duty and fight the lies coming from the leadership of their party and Trump, then the only option was to resign. They can not use threats to justify doing nothing to quell the lies.

What to you expect if you base a political movement on "Government being the enemy"

This did not start with Trump. It did not even start with Reagan although I think you can trace the current Republican party to the birth of Reaganism and telling Republican supporters that Government is the enemy.

If government is the enemy, or you believe it, and you have a religious intensity, you can understand why these republicans can both attack the US government and think themselves patriots. This is compounded by embedding this anti government belief with a belief that you are actually fighting Satan in the form of democrats. Not all (especially the cynical Republican Senators) believe that, but many of these people actually believe they are fighting Satan. If you believe that Democrats are satanic pedifiles, any action you take would be justified to prevent such satanists from taking power even if you take illegal actions or act against the plain meaning of the constitution.

This is what we are fighting and the people who believe this are beyond direct communication because any argument from us will be satanic lies. What we have to do is fight the knowing enabliers, make the true believers understand that the people telling them lies are liars, frauds and con men. The trick will be to find a way to do this without them believing that an attack on Cruz or any other Republican senator is just another satanic trick.

Hey GOP. If you dont like the way Pennsylvania votes. Dont move there. (NT)

Hey GOP, if you dont like the way Arizona votes. Dont move there.

I hope that every one of the traitors in the house and senate get constant redicule the rest of their lives when they venture into the public.

Loads of Irregularities in the GOP Conduct

The GOP is all over the word "irregularity" There are ways to respond that turn the word on them and should be used anytime a politician or outraged trump supporter mentions irregularities. Feel free to add to the list.

It is not irregular for people to be disappointed if they lose an election, it is irregular not to concede when you lost.

It is not irregular for losing candidates to ask for recounts. However, it is irregular to ask for recounts when the election is not close.
Further, it is highly irregular for candidates to factually challenge the results of the recount and not concede when the recount establishes that yes you did, in fact, lose.

It is not irregular (although divisive) for supporters of a candidate to refer to the right to go to court or claim that a candidate still has legal rights. It is irregular for anyone to continue to claim that anyone who filed and lost over 50 cases in a month has not had his day in court or not already exercised his or her legal rights.

Then there is a whole list of pure irregularities.

It is irregular for a candidate to pursue "overturning" an election. You only overturn what you have lost.
It is irregular for a remedy in voting to claim you win by only disenfranchising your opponents votes.
It is irregular for a state attorney general to file a case challenging another state's election laws.
It is irregular to challenge a presidential election at the county, state, or federal level after the vote counts have been certified at these levels.
It is irregular to hint that you may not leave the white house.
It is irregular in the lame duck 2 months after losing an election, to change the heads of multiple agencies and cabinet positions including the departments of defense and justice since they are going to be changed anyhow 2 months later.
Finally, it is most irregular for public servants in the house and senate to act against their oaths of office, not acknowledge reality, and act to increase divisions in a country by silence and making public lies only to avoid the wrath of a losing candidate with a temper tantrum who has had his vote, his recount and his day in court.

In particular that last irregularity should be shoved into the face of every representative and senator who continues to weasel and say there were "irregularities"

Compare him to George Washington with respect to peaceful transitions and Trump thinks he knows more

I realize it is pretty late in the campaign but Joe's debate line about Trump thinks he is Abe Lincoln which was effective made me thing of something even more topical and effective if used in a speech by surrogates.

Rather than reference Trump's hubris in thinking he is Abraham Lincoln. Attack him with a comparison to George Washington.

A line of attack like "Trump thinks he is greater than George Washington the founder of our great democracy who established the principle of peaceful and accepted transfer of power in our elections. This has been followed by every candidate up to Trump who refuses to consent to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses. Trump has the hubris to think he is greater and smarter than George Washington, the founder of our country and every other great president who has led since then. Is this the type of egocentric person who should lead an electoral democracy."

If anyone is connected to Joe Biden's campaign and can run this line of attack to him, would be appreciated. I think it is the right comparison.

Can a Senator evaluate a Supreme Court Justice if the Senator is Sick

The republicans are spinning that they can hold zoom or remote site votes for sick republican senators to vote on Comey Barrett.

However, a line of attack that democratic pundits should use is not whether a sick senator can attend or vote but if the purpose of the judiciary committee is for each senator to form an independant evaluation and determination of a candidates fitness, is a person with covid symptoms or who is taking drugs able to fulfill this function?

We dont let Pilots fly when they are hung over or sick or on drugs. If you ask the common man whether they can do their best work when they are sick, they will say of course not. That is why the judiciary committee should not meet until all senators are no longer sick and therefore are capable of evaluating a candidate.

Remind Republicans looking for Government Action of Ronald Reagan

Republicans looking for government to work and help them should be reminded that they idolized Reagan whose statement was the scariest statement was "I am from the government and here to help". The diseased tree that is Trump and MAGA has its seed in long standing Republican positions and policies. It is not just Trump that is incompetent, it is the underlying philosophy of Republicanism starting before Reagan but flowering in the Reagan years followed by the Tea Party that Government is a problem rather than a source of helping people and that the Private Sector can solve national problems that really require government.

It is not Trump, it is the Republican party. If they expect Government to solve this, they should be reminded that they should exorcise that bad strain from their soul.

Saying NO ONE likes or likes working with Bernie is a lie --- Proof

Yesterday in total bad faith, one of the people who posts a lot of OP and response posts a day always bashing Bernie said it was truth and his proof was that every senator didn't bow down, jump on a soapbox and refute the statement. Well that's an exaggeration but the point should be obvious. When its pointed out that millions of people actually love and support him including some that might not even vote for him, the goal posts change and obviously its just his peers and why didn't each of them take off from their lives to jump on a soapbox..

Well today, Senator Klobucher on the debate stage disagreed with Hillarys statement and said she likes and has worked with Bernie including citing a specific issue they worked closely together on. Are you going to call her a liar because she refused to back up a total smear. Amy is Bernie's opponent too and disagrees with his issues which is fine but she does not do what the people on this site do which is lie, smear and twist every single mention of Bernie. Have concerns, disagree with his issues, but do not lie. This isthe problem with Hillary's comments. If she had said, I am slightly biased because I just got out of a contentious election with him or even said she doesn't like him that would be fine. Instead she said NOONE likes him. Not even SOME PEOPLE. Hillary is definitely entitled to her opinion of Bernie and can even not want him to be the Democratic candidate. However, she did not do that. She smeared him

Now to get to more proof than Amy.

Bernie was one of the founders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus which is composed of Bernie's Peers .

Here are the other founding members U.S. Representatives Ron Dellums (D-CA), Lane Evans (D-IL), Thomas Andrews (D-ME), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Obviously these people wanted to work with him. To forestall attacks. Theyse six didn't like working with him and didn't like him so much that they made him the Chairman of the caucus. After that many more members of Congress joined a caucus headed by Bernie Sanders a person NOONE of them liked or wanted to work with including …Major Owens (D-NY), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), David Bonior (D-MI), Bob Filner (D-CA), __________(D-MA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Patsy Mink (D-HI), George Miller (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), John Olver (D-MA), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and ___________ (D-CA).

All fine progressive democrats who according to the people on this site are "NOONE". So obviously if they are to avoid being NOONE, they must have recognized pretty fast that they actually didn't like him and dont like working with him and history proves you are again correct. These fine democratic peers disliked Bernie so much that they made him chairman the next 7 years until he joined the Senate. Oh I forgot a few names Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank.

Hillary herself worked with Bernie and honestly thanked him for his hard work working with HER on health care. The recent problem with Hillary's comments are not that she said something but the fact that she deliberately exaggerated or lied with the purpose of smearing a leading candidate who may win the Primaries. If so, we need unity and popping in to smear someone with a lie (see above proofs that the use of NOONE is a lie). Its like thinking that everything your divorced friend says about his or her ex-spouse is 100% the truth. If you can not see that the use of NOONE turns something that is her experience and emotional belief into a total smear, you are being inauthentic.

So I hope that I do not see this lie again but know that is a false hope because there are many people on this site who may honestly be concerned that he is not electable and may honestly not like his policies vs some other candidate but all they actually do is lie and smear against him and people who like him, creating division in the Democratic Party. Support your own candidate, don't tear down others.

Noone likes him or wants to work with him is a Lie --- proof

Yesterday in total bad faith, one of the people who posts a lot of OP and response posts a day always bashing Bernie said it was truth and his proof was that every senator didn't bow down, jump on a soapbox and refute the statement. Well that's an exaggeration but the point should be obvious. When its pointed out that millions of people actually love and support him including some that might not even vote for him, the goal posts change and obviously its just his peers and why didn't each of them take off from their lives to jump on a soapbox..

Well today, Senator Klobucher on the debate stage disagreed with Hillarys statement and said she likes has worked with Bernie including citing a specific issue they worked closely together on. Are you going to call her a liar because she refused to back up a total smear. Amy is Bernie's opponent too and disagrees with his issues which is fine but she does not do what the people on this site do which is lie, smear and twist every single mention of Bernie. Have concerns, disagree with his issues, but do not lie. This isthe problem with Hillary's comments. If she had said, I am slightly biased because I just got out of a contentious election with him or even said she doesn't like him that would be fine. Instead she said NOONE likes him. Not even SOME PEOPLE. Hillary is definitely entitled to her opinion of Bernie and can even not want him to be the Democratic candidate. However, she did not do that. She smeared him

Now to get to more proof than Amy.

Bernie was one of the founders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus which is composed of Bernie's Peers .

Here are the other founding members U.S. Representatives Ron Dellums (D-CA), Lane Evans (D-IL), Thomas Andrews (D-ME), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Obviously these people wanted to work with him. To forestall attacks. Theyse six didn't like working with him and didn't like him so much that they made him the Chairman of the caucus. After that many more members of Congress joined a caucus headed by Bernie Sanders a person NOONE of them liked or wanted to work with including …Major Owens (D-NY), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), David Bonior (D-MI), Bob Filner (D-CA), __________(D-MA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Patsy Mink (D-HI), George Miller (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), John Olver (D-MA), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and ___________ (D-CA).

All fine progressive democrats who according to the people on this site are "NOONE". So obviously if they are to avoid being NOONE, they must have recognized pretty fast that they actually didn't like him and dont like working with him and history proves you are again correct. These fine democratic peers disliked Bernie so much that they made him chairman the next 7 years until he joined the Senate. Oh I forgot a few names Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank.

Hillary herself worked with Bernie and honestly thanked him for his hard work working with HER on health care. The recent problem with Hillary's comments are not that she said something but the fact that she deliberately exaggerated or lied with the purpose of smearing a leading candidate who may win the Primaries. If so, we need unity and popping in to smear someone with a lie (see above proofs that the use of NOONE is a lie). Its like thinking that everything your divorced friend says about his or her ex-spouse is 100% the truth. If you can not see that the use of NOONE turns something that is her experience and emotional belief into a total smear, you are being inauthentic.

So I hope that I do not see this lie again but know that is a false hope because there are many people on this site who may honestly be concerned that he is not electable and may honestly not like his policies vs some other candidate but all they actually do is lie and smear against him and people who like him, creating division in the Democratic Party. Support your own candidate, don't tear down others.

Would a viral poll against all Aquiting Senators help

Any tech person savvy enough to start one outside DU. Thinking it would simply contain a vow to vote against or contribute against any Senator voting to convict. Right now they are eatimating the fact of trump retaliation against possible voter reaction. If a poll went viral it might really show that the threat of Trump is less than the threat of voters. I am thinking of how the last episode of game of thronea got 3million signatures against the showrunners There were various public defenses but in fact star wars terminated their gig with star wars.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »